1. Technical Field
The subject matter described herein generally relates to the field of predicting and managing catastrophic event impacts, and more specifically to predicting a likely level of damage from a future catastrophic event and making decisions regarding mitigation accordingly.
2. Background Information
Numerous resources need to be deployed when disasters strike. Fire, police, National Guard and FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) resources all need to be allocated in a sensible manner. For some disasters, coordination among two or more national governments may be required. Likewise, businesses need to allocate their resources in a similar fashion. For instance, if a retail establishment has a regional warehouse, it will want to know which stores are likely to be damaged (so goods are not shipped there) as well as which are near to the impacted area but are not likely to be damaged (so that goods can be shipped there to be available in the damaged area after the disaster).
Perhaps the most direct example of such allocation of resources in the face of a catastrophic event comes from the insurance industry. In that industry, multiple layers of insurers have often-overlapping coverage, all with limits (e.g., caps) and other constraints that can change the overall protection based on even slight changes in the geographic impact of a storm, or on other factors, such as actual wind speed, season, soil saturation level, or previous events that year from which a full recovery has not yet been made. This sensitivity is easily seen when one considers a disaster that spans multiple jurisdictions, such as a tropical storm with a path that could most severely impact either Mexico or the United States, depending on only a slight change in the storm's track. For instance, some insurers may have a very large stake in facilities on the U.S. side of the border but few on the Mexican side.
Similar, though less dramatic, effects are found with respect to other geopolitical boundaries such as state and county lines, municipal limits, and even natural boundaries such as flood plains, watersheds and the like.
In the past, governments, aid organizations and businesses have created documents outlining certain “rules of engagement” with respect to addressing the impact of such catastrophic events. For example, a state National Guard unit may have one plan for mobilization within the state's boundaries, but a more complex and limited manner of engagement for mobilization when a neighboring state seeks its assistance.
As these rules of engagement play out in the context of an actual event, however, the complexity of the rules becomes quite difficult to manage. For instance, there is widespread public commentary regarding the number of different law enforcement agencies with jurisdiction in Washington, D.C. The FEMA website page http://www.fema.gov/about/offices/ncr/index.shtm explains that there is an entire Office of National Capital Region Coordination to oversee and manage the overlapping responsibilities of various authorities in the region who should be included in catastrophic planning. While useful for the coordinated operation of the different Washington, D.C. law enforcement agencies, adding a layer of administration generally does not improve response times, efficiency, or timeliness.
In the private sector, various responsibilities for addressing damage due to catastrophic events are typically spelled out in contracts. Though there has been some attempt in the past to simplify the structure of these documents to best ensure that the interactions among them can be followed in a fairly certain manner, to date there remain wide variations in the manner that the various rights and responsibilities of stakeholders are defined.
It would be advantageous if there were a system and method that consistently and in a wholly deterministic manner set forth the various rights and responsibilities of stakeholders to help streamline allocation of resources to an area impacted by a catastrophic event.
The features and advantages described in the specification are not all inclusive and, in particular, many additional features and advantages will be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the drawings, specification, and claims. Moreover, it should be noted that the language used in the specification has been principally selected for readability and instructional purposes, and may not have been selected to delineate or circumscribe the disclosed subject matter.
The figures depict various embodiments for purposes of illustration only. One skilled in the art will readily recognize from the following discussion that alternative embodiments of the structures and methods illustrated herein may be employed without departing from the principles of the embodiments described herein.